Here is a quick news round up.

• So that bailout thing everyone was talking about?  Yeah it failed.  And people are screaming about Nancy P's speech.  McCain and company are saying that's the reason it failed.  Well.  If any congressman changed their vote because they got mad over of a speech from Nancy Pelosi then they lack the mental clarity to be in Congress.  End of story.   But Congress is going to keep working on this.  Hopefully.  But some good news?  The market shot up 200 points this morning.
• OH MY GOD, THE SCIENTISTS SAW SNOW FALLING ON MARS.  Are aliens real?
• Have you ever read about those creepy purity balls?  No?  Click here.  So basically, you go to a ball with your dad, sign a covenant with the big guy to be a good girl, and then your daddy signs something saying he'll be your protector.  Ugh.  It tells the story of one girl who promised not to kiss until she got married. Wowie.  What if her husband is a face licker?  What if he's a tongue strangler? Dumb.  The headline of the story? "Virginity Pledges Can Work For Some".  HAHA.  Not most.  Moving on.
• And finally, shana tova, Jewish friends!  Happy New Year!  Kind of unfair that you get to have two new years and then eight days of presents instead of one, but I'm over it.  In case you haven't seen this, here is Sarah Silverman's video asking Jewish kids to get their grandparents in Florida to vote for Obama.  Kind of hysterical.  Could be offensive.  It's Sarah Silverman.

[Posted by Kathleen]

David Gorski explains how he became a major critic of the antivaccine crowd & reviews Paul Offit's book

American purity balls and brainwashing young children - I've heard about these before and I find the whole thing extraordinarily creepy and disturbing.

POLITICAL NEWS:

Democrat Kay Hagan pulls ahead of Republican Elizabeth Dole - As you may recall, Dole criticized Hagan almost exactly 1 month ago for having the audacity to meet with secular organizations. . .you know, atheists. So I hope Hagan kicks Dole's ass.

Hell No, We Won't Coal - Al Gore is calling on the nation’s youthful, unemployed, and unwashed to commit civil disobedience to stop construction of new coal plants that don't install carbon capturing technologies. Coal is one of the most plentiful, non-renewable energy resources on the planet and 40% of our electricity comes from coal-burning power plants, but it's terrible on the environment.

CREATIONIST NEWS:

Another absurd creationist rip-off of the Randi Million Dollar Challenge w/ an impossible to reach goalpost - Now it's the creationist who got Richard Dawkins' website banned in Turkey has offered:

"10 trillion Turkish lira to anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution" - a sum roughly equal to £4.4trn.

PZ Myers calculates that to be $8,010,890,000,000. Eight trillion, ten billion, eight hundred and ninety million dollars. Of course creationists have tried this gambit before. The trick is that they're asking for a single fossil that will prove evolution because they believe (or profess to believe) despite being corrected many, many times that evolution means that individual fossils should resemble some sort of hybrid or chimera like Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's classic straw man, The Crocoduck. Evolution can't be proven with a single fossil because the very nature of evolution requires the comparative analysis of many fossils:

Did Kirk Cameron's obscure and undoubtedly crappy Christian movie only in limited release do better than the mainstream blockbuster "Eagle Eye?" - Depends on who you ask. If you ask Kirk's partner in crime, Ray "The Banana Guy" Comfort, then the answer is yes. If you ask any other rational person, the answer is not even close. ON his blog, Ray cites advanced ticket sales:

"In terms of advance sales, Cameron's Fireproof, an ultra-low-budget marriage-minded family drama opening on about 800 screens, has smoked LaBeouf's $105 million, opening-everywhere thriller Eagle Eye.

Fireproof accounted for a whopping 40 percent of all advance sales this week on Fandango, the ticket service said today. Eagle Eye was a distant second, representing 17 percent of sales. Through Wednesday, Fireproof was leading the week with 23 percent of all advance sales. No other movie, “Eagle Eye” included, was even in double digits."

Of course many of the commenters on Ray's blog pointed out the problems with this so-called victory. Kirk's little movie got terrible reviews. One commenter reported that "Eagle Eye still made $29.2 million in its opening weekend, compared to Fireproof's $6.5 million, according to studio estimates compiled by Exhibitor Relations." Another commenter wrote: "Just what are "advance sales" for films? I'm picturing an organization (an evangelical church perhaps) buying up reams of tickets and telling members to go." Another wrote, "Why exactly should advance ticket sales through Fandango mean anything? . . . That puts Eagle Eye at $8,305 per theater, and Fireproof at $7,764 per theater. Without even taking into consideration whether Fireproof opened only in areas where it was more likely to do well (and not in those in which the opposite was true), Eagle Eye still did better on a per-theater basis. All you've really said is that more people chose to buy advance tickets through Fandango for Fireproof than for Eagle Eye. I assure you, this holds significance for no one except Fandango"

Charlie's Playhouse - A website that sells Evolution-friendly toys to children.

Mercury Retrograde - a term hijacked by the astrologers

WHAT'S THE HARM?

Can tithing hurt you during a financial crisis? - Some Christians are continuing to tithe (give 10% of their income to church) despite not being able to pay their mortgage, once again proving that belief in religion and superstition does great harm.

And another example of what's the harm:

Here's Age of Autism's latest blog:

"If you don’t like the way your tax dollars are being spent, or not spent, on autism research, this is your chance to speak up and take action. The strategic plan (SP) for autism research will guide federal spending on autism research for the next five years, subject to annual updates."

Everyone who is even the slightest bit concerned about autism, the hosts of virtually extinct diseases that could return if enough people stop vaccinating, and the idea of medical science being directed by scientifically illiterate quacks should find this proposal absolutely frightening.

THE MORE YOU KNOW: POPULAR MYTHS

The healthy human body is exactly 98.6 degrees F - This medical myth is FALSE

EPIC FAIL!

Crackergate launches a revolution on TouTube - Once again Catholic outrage over something has drawn far more attention to it than existed prior to their outrage. Now YouTubers are making their own videos "desecrating" the Eucharist. Good job. Way to fail, Catholics:

"His videos began two months ago with the user saying into a webcam that he denied the Holy Spirit, then splitting a host in half and eating it with disrespect."

Please somebody tell me how one eats a cracker with disrespect, because I've got a Nabisco cracker that has pissed me off the last time. Then I got to get me a communion wafer of my own to defile. If anyone can get me a communion wafer, please let me know. I will defile it worse than any god made of crackers has ever been defiled before. Here is one YouTuber cited in the article who's really going to town on these wafers. I particularly like this one where the body of Christ gets nailed:

AND NOW A MOMENT OF SCIENCE:

Solar Cell Sets World Efficiency Record - "Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have set a world record in solar cell efficiency with a photovoltaic device that converts 40.8 percent of the light that hits it into electricity. This is the highest confirmed efficiency of any photovoltaic device to date."

Brain Disorder Leaves Patient Always 'Lost' -"Researchers at the University of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute recently documented the first case of a patient who, without apparent brain damage or cognitive impairment, is unable to orient within any environment. Researchers also believe that there are many others in the general population who may be affected by this developmental topographical disorder."

Dark Energy: Is It Merely An Illusion? - "Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, according physicists at Oxford University."

NASA’s Dirty Secret: Moon Dust - "The Apollo Moon missions of 1969-1972 all share a dirty secret. “The major issue the Apollo astronauts pointed out was dust, dust, dust,” says Professor Larry Taylor, Director of the Planetary Geosciences Institute at the University of Tennessee. Fine as flour and rough as sandpaper, Moon dust caused ‘lunar hay fever,’ problems with space suits, and dust storms in the crew cabin upon returning to space."

1. The issue of marriage for feminists has always been a tricky one (should we buy in to a patriarchal construct that only recognizes heterosexual love), but one feminist skeptic has been rethinking marriage as more of her friends in same-sex relationships are excited now that they can get married.

2. Oh Time magazine, don't fall for purity balls. How is this not creepy Victorian-era backstepping?

They gave her a charm for her bracelet--a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. "On my wedding day, he'll give it to my husband," she explains. "It's a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I'm supposed to be loved."

I am all for father-daughter bonding, but not when it centers around telling young girls that their value lies between their legs, there is something wrong with this.

3. Perhaps daddy should buy his daughter an abstinence thong complete with the tag line "earn your right to wear white." And no, I'm not kidding.

4. I am still not sure where I stand with feminism and porn, but here's a great collection of links to pro-sex blogs and books.

5. If I choose to give birth, I will most definitely be doing it at home.

6. Take that, Barbie! Girls' math skills are equal to boys' math skills, a new study finds. Because the vadge doesn't get in the way of understanding the Pythagorean theorem.

7. I was never a fan of Keira Knightly until she rocked it in Pride & Prejudice. Now this news-- Keira refuses digital breast enhancement in promotional pictures for her new film, The Dutchess. Previously, for King Arthur, they had digitally enhanced her small boobs and she was ticked. I like her even more for saying you know what, I've got small boobs. Deal with it. Bravo!

8. I am so freaking sick of the machismo commercials. You're a disgrace to the man race for speed walking? Quit your jibber jabber, Mr. T!

9. Generally I am thrilled that Disney is finally going to have a black princess, and yet after seeing the trailer I'm going to agree with feministe and pray that the movie isn't offensive.

10. Hells bells, by making a computer pink it doesn't mean females will flock to it. "Gee, I love that gadget...if only it were in pink, then I'd buy it. Alas, black will not do!"

11. Congress held a hearing on sexual assault in the military. I was shocked and horrified to learn that women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. Something needs to be done.

12. A must-read with a catchy title: McSexist takes on McCain's record with women's rights. "To vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane." Agree? Disagree?

13. Oh my god. In Russia a judge ruled that sexual harassment is okay because it ensures the survival of the human race. Men should hit on women as their duty to the human race. "If we didn't have sexual harassment, we would have no children." Wow.

14. Remember Kyle Payne, the so-called feminist who was charged with rape? Here's an update on his 'situation.'

15. The staff at the Family Research Council is absolutely horrified and "revolted" and left "visibly shaken" after viewing a commercial that they claim is "highly inappropriate for adults." What's the commercial allude to? Female masturbation. FAINT!

16. Speaking of Disney movies, here's a video analysis of the construction of masculinity according to Disney. Just think--Gaston vs. the Beast. You know you want to watch it.

17. Is a hookup culture such a bad thing? Do we have to adhere to virgin/whore dichotomies?

18. Apparently the ladybug is the valley girl of the animal kingdom--things are so much easier when you're pretty!

19. Why do we continue to wait for male birth control advances? But if they were available, would men use them?

20. The college I went to strongly emphasized global thinking and global awareness, so I always try to bring a global perspective to my feminism. Yet sometimes I am hesitant (who am I, little Miss White American Feminist) to "interfere." I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks about whether or not we have a global responsibility.

21. With Kit Kittredge and Laura Ingalls Wilder becoming more popular, are young girls looking for a more pure role model?

Finally, the empowering video I've watched about two dozen times this week, the lolcat on my desktop, the tv show I really miss, and the event I wish I had gone to.

"The word ‘virgin' did not originally mean a woman whose vagina was untouched by any penis, but a free woman, one not betrothed, not bound to, not possessed by any man. It meant a female who is sexually and hence socially her own person. In any version of patriarchy, there are no Virgins in this sense."

Here that purity ball fanatics? There are NO virgins on our patriarchal planet as patriarchy rules out female freedom from male dominance. Granted, according to Frye's concept of the term, there are many ‘demi-virgins' or ‘near virgins' - they are those women not controlled by male bosses, leaders, lovers, etc. However, I am not sure if we have any true virgins as even the woman who is sexually and socially her own person lives within a society in which rape, sexual harassment, and sexism are rampant. She lived within a society that does not allow women to be entirely free of male dominance.

But, how does Frye's recuperation of the term differ from the use of virgin in common parlance today? Well, currently we use virgin to mean:

• someone who is ‘holding out' until marriage and may have promised their virginity to dear old dad in a sick, incestuous romp known as a purity ball
• someone who is ‘tantalizing jailbait'
• a female who has not had vaginal sex (apparently oral and anal don't count)
• someone who is sexually naïve and may very well be unf***able (as in ‘not hot' via sexist standards)

Most often, the term virgin is used in association with women as the female body is the one designated as property within patriarchy. Ironically, this is in keeping with the original meaning of the term. Yet, today, ‘virgin' is not used to refer to a free woman, but to designate whether a woman's vagina has been penetrated by a penis.

Historically, virgin was often used to mean ‘unmarried' - as in not owned by a man. A virgin was thus property for the taking (sadly, not all too different from today...).  Another interesting historical tidbit is that the so-called ‘Virgin Mary' was actually the ‘Young Mary.' As Barbara G. Walker documents in The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets,  "Hebrew Gospels designated Mary by the word almah, mistakenly translated ‘virgin,' but really meaning ‘young woman.'" Kind of puts a dent in the whole miraculous conception narrative, doesn't it? Yet, this narrative took hold because it is so useful for patriarchy. Or, as Walker puts it, "The impossible virgin mother was everyman's longed-for resolution of Oedipal conflicts: pure maternity, never distracted from her devotion by sexual desires."

Currently, the cultural fixation on female virginity is accompanied by the excessive sexual objectification of women. As such, females are given the message to be as sexy as possible, to be sexually desirable, but to simultaneously stay ‘pure.' This paradigm results in the designation of ‘non-virginal' women as ‘sluts'; the cultural message is too ‘look slutty' but not ‘be slutty.'

Now, if ‘slut' were a compliment, that would be one thing. But it is not. It is far from the female equivalent of male terms such as stud, player, pimp, or manwhore. As Jessica Valenti writes in her book He's a Stud, She's a Slut, "Men can't be sluts...there isn't a word-let alone a concept-to signify a male slut." This is key as slut is the flipside of virgin: both terms are about controlling women. Even male purity balls make this agenda clear via their focus on not defiling someone else's future wife!

While the reclamation of the term virgin is a nice theoretical dream, the reality is that within heteronormative corporatist patriarchy, women are the booty anyway you slice it - whether one is ‘hot virgin booty' or a ‘dirty slut,' our culture still defines women via their sexual availability (and desirability) to men. The use of the term virgin today is almost reaching fetish proportions. As if the cult of  virginity perpetuated by abstinence only education and the cultural espousal of virginity hawked in popular culture were not enough, we know have re-virginization surgery - a female genital mutilation procedure rapidly gaining in popularity. Too bad we don't have a re-virginization of the term itself that would return it to what it once meant - a free woman. Wouldn't that just put a nice spin on ‘purity balls'? Instead of the sick celebration of female as male property they are now, they would become feminist fests where females could declare their refusal to be owned or controlled by any man.

Sorry I've been so absent from posting, life has taken a turn for the busy. So I thought I'd give you some food for thought since I've found a minute to do some reading of my own in the Feminist Blogosphere! Thank god some people get paid for this!

• Most EXCITEDLY check out the lady Catholic priests being ordained in Boston earlier this week!!
• Wait, so is this saying we should get the HPV vaccine? Weren't we angry a while ago that this vaccine is so expensive yet treats only a fraction of disease-causing HPV...post a comment if you have insight!
• Jessica at Feministing reports on a really weird review of Purity Balls in Time Magazine...ew
• And something related--a Purity quote that might make you vomit a little bit in your mouth.
• Convert your bra into a face mask in the event of biological war!
• A review of the New Fat-chick video game by feminist blogger and game designer Holly
• This girl speaks for so many....sexism from the mouth of Brook Hogan (daughter of Hulk)
• Environmentalists HATE AMERICA!! you'll get a chuckle at the sarcasm.
  
• Rape still being called "sex" ..

One poor fool holds Congresswoman Wilson responsible for her husband's alleged sexual assault of a teenage boy:

Anyone married to that beast would be capable of very evil sex deeds.

Sheesh. Is that sexism gratuitous enough for ya? It's clear the guy doesn't even mean it, yet simply has to say it anyway. Can't stop himself. Ugly. Unnecessary. And yet it's allowed to stand without being removed.

2. News stories on two of the North Carolina women murdered: Holly Wimunc and Nancy Cooper.

I've been thinking some more about the threat to our military women posed by our military MEN. More to come on that.

3. How to be a feminist activist without having to work too hard or risk jail at feministgal. Good piece. One of my first "lessons" about political activism was that merely voting is a form of activism.

4. Feministing does a very good job of revealing the bankrupt logic of PETA's use of women's naked bodies to capture public attention. (Is THAT gratuitous enough for ya?)

5. Everyone agrees: Purity Balls are creepy to the max.

Well, perhaps not the male half of those participating. But who knows?

There's a very good reason for the overwhelming negative reaction by the rest of us. I think most psychologists would refer to the practice as incestuous on some level. Emotionally incestuous, perhaps. There's something quite unnatural, I think, (not to mention highly inappropriate) about a father being overly interested in his daughter's sex life.

Sure, he has a right to be concerned about her -- but not quite to this extent and not in this way. Not to the extent he spends much time thinking or imaging or talking about it or having grown-up style formal dances around the subject. Not to the extent he makes her promise her sexual fidelity to HIM. No, no, no, not right at all!

To be honest, I think this practice is almost worse than being chattel. At least chattel has no overt sexual context.

We'll talk more about sex and young women in the days to come too. I've got a lot to say on the subject.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1823930,00.html

But we're finding this works better for keeping on top of daily flaps than for learning genuinely new information. Bloggers rarely pick up the phone or go interview the middle-level bureaucrats who know the good stuff. It's a lot easier to chew over breaking stories and bash old media. Where do they get the information with which to bash? Often from, ahem, newspapers.

This is absolute fucking bullshit and that weenie Alter has to know it. I can't tell you how many times in the past year I've seen something covered on either my local news broadcast (KTVU; I like to watch it as I get ready for work) or cable news, only to think "I read about this last week on HuffPo/Wonkette/Reason/insert any one of dozens of blogs I read here". And they certainly didn't get it from print news, which is almost always the last medium to cover a story noawadays.

But how to explain the venom of so many comment sections and e-mails? Like senior citizens suffering from dementia, Web users often fall prey to "disinhibition"—the lack of a filter for their most brutal thoughts. In the campaign, this takes the form of an umbrage explosion, where a day rarely passes without someone's taking grave offense over something.

Oh, suck it the fuck up, you candyass. All this sounds like to me is that you're worried you've devoted your life to an obsolete media, and you're too fucking old and set in your ways to adapt. MSM mouthpieces still railing against the evils of blogging in 2008 are like buggy makers yelling about how this "automobile" thing is just a fad in 1910. Plus, you work for Newsweek, which journalistically speaking is barely a step above the slambook my girlfriends and I passed around homeroom in 7th grade. There, is that enough umbrage for ya?

Besides, anyone using vitriolic comments as an excuse to bash blogging as a whole comes off as a desperate moran. If I may steal an example from Fire Joe Morgan, it's like randomly pulling a pulpy romance paperback off an airport store shelf and saying, "This book sucks! Fuck you and your entire medium, Tolstoy!!"

Let's just look at a couple of recent shining examples of the superiority of print media to blogs, shall we?

Time pens a paean to Purity Balls that makes the entire feminist blogosphere collectively throw up in its mouth. 

I like how the reporter Alexandra Silver says, “Leave aside” the patriarchal elements, which is like writing an article about Watergate and saying, “Leave aside the burglary and corruption, and let’s talk about G. Gordon Liddy’s tie.” Of course, I suppose that’s standard in journalism now.  “Leave aside the fact that Bush lied to get us into a war, and let’s talk about how he grins so charmingly at reporters.” -from Pandagon's excellent piece

WaPo op-ed columnist Richard Cohen blames the bad economy on young men and women getting tattoos. No, really. Why don't you just blame it on those darn kids who won't stay off your lawn, Dick--excuse me, Richard?

Sure in the LDS church we have plenty of talk about premarital virginity, but I'm really glad it isn't taken to such an extreme. Or do these happen in Utah and I'm just clueless?

You know, if you wanted further proof that these people live in a world very different from our own, you could really just look at the fact that nobody involved thought twice about making everybody say the words “purity balls” over and over every time they wanted to reference these things.

At some point I want to do a cartoon on this phenomenon (do-doo-de-dodo!), cuz wow is it completely fucking weird. Even furries could look askance at it.

All these questions have been parading my mind. So when I read this article by Nancy Gibbs of the New York Times, I felt a bit better:

The message, they say, is about integrity, being whole people, heart and soul and body.

You can find the whole article here.

In light of human nature, I feel moved to posit a companion phrase: that those who know history are still capable of repeating it, particularly if they thought it was a good idea the first time round.

With that in mind, here are three recent, related, news articles:

1. The tradition of Albanian sworn virgins;

2. The rise of hymenoplasty among young French women; and

3. The advent of American purity balls.

As far as the history of womens' rights is concerned, I'm a remarkably privileged person. I wasn't raised to believe that sex before marriage was bad (or, conversely, threatened with shame, penalty, violence or social exile should I indulge in it). Although I'm happily married now, I had a choice about how to live my life, with whom and under what circumstances. I was taught that women and men are equal. I live in an era of contraception and sexual freedom, and believe these are both good things. And because of my friends and family; because of my Australian citizenship, race, socio-economic status and - yes - atheism, I've never had to fight for this to be the case.  

In a nutshell: I take these freedoms for granted. To a certain extent, I can't help it - because I've never had to seriously defend them. Oh, there were times early on at primary school when boys would tease or exclude me from games because I was a girl, and therefore The Enemy, but the fact that I was persistent, assertive and more than a little tomboyish meant that, nine times out of ten, I won them over. As a teenager, I butted heads with blokes about the social role of women, and as a university student, I went online and debated feminism (of a sort) with Christian Evangelists, but these were all theoretical debates, and society  - I knew - was On My Side. Day-to-day, I've never been kept back, excluded, ridiculed, restricted or punished for being female: my gender has never earned me a separate set of social rules or expectations. Unlike my mother, I've never had a bank laugh at me for trying to take out a loan as an umarried woman. I know these are recent developments, and I'm grateful for them. Should the need arise, I'd be ready to come to their defence. I also know women in most of the rest of the world aren't half so lucky.

But what I struggle with - what I really struggle with - is the idea that glass ceilings, sexism and patriarchy still exist, not overseas, but in my society. The idea that western democracies can still have double standards where women are concerned feels...wrong. Logically, I know it's true. And despite a wealth of inner scepticism, it's not that I'm sceptical when I hear of it - not in the least. It's just so far removed from my own experience that it's like finding a sweatshop under the local council.

Take the idea of purity balls, for instance. The article mentions talk of making a similar thing for boys, but only as an afterthought. The problem isn't with encouraging teen abstience: it's in the execution and the mindset. Because only girls are targeted. There is no balancing idea that mothers keep the virtue of their sons: rather, it harks back to the day when men passed their daughters on to other men, and the women went quietly. One father, at least, drew a line at the idea of Indian-style arranged marriages, just wanting the parents to be involved, but presumably this can happen without attending a purity ball. As a system, it seems more likely to encourage parental veto of potential suitors than not - mostly because these dads use the word suitors to begin with, a term which connotes the necessity of permission. And where permission can be granted as a matter of course - by gum, it can be withheld.  

'Purity' isn't a helpful word, either, because more than promoting abstience until such-and-such a time, it actively suggests dirtiness, or wrongness, in the alternative. This, I suspect, is the core of why abstinence-only sex education programs fail: they consider virginity more important than waiting until you're ready. This isn't a semantic distinction. As a religious concept, virginity means considerably more than not having had sex. It implies waiting, not until you're ready, but until marriage, committing to this ideal rather than simply being sensible about the circumstances of your first time. Because, sooner or later, there will be a first time. Exalting virginity rather than talking about being comfortable - which, of necessity, means talking about actual sex - isn't a great approach. And purity balls, as an extension of the concept, are hardly a step up.

They're a step down, in fact, because they're only aimed at girls. Unplanned pregnancies aren't fun, especially for teenagers, but the idea that female virtue needs to be guarded that much more closely because women give birth overlooks the whole notion of male involvement as anything other than guardians. It says that because boys can't get pregnant by slipping in the abstience stakes, there's less (or no) need to worry; the fact that they can still impregnant girls is, apparently, the girl's problem. Jumping to another glaring anachronism, the whole 'purity ball' concept hinges on daddy giving his daughter to a strapping lad, as opposed - say - to someone else's daughter. That, methinks, is a whole 'nother issue for the type of folk likely to attend purity balls, but damned if it doesn't rate a mention.  

Hymenoplasty - surgery to reconstruct the appearance of virginity - is another concern. In France, young Muslim women in particular have been paying to have it done before their weddings, which raises an interesting question of sexual progression vs. traditionalism. Clearly, their husbands-to-be place a value on virginity, as one notorious court-case has made clear; but the women themselves, comfortable with sex outside of marriage, need only the semblance. Need, not want: this is a key point. They feel they'll be punished for having had sex, and sadly, in some instances, they will be. 

The last sworn virgins in Albania are now old women; they've lived their whole lives as men, on the condition that they never have sex. In some instances, it was all they could do in a patriarchal society where their family had lost the male head of the household; others, doubtless, chose as much from sexual orientation as a desire for social standing. Oddly, the basis for this system was the appropriate weregild - blood-price - paid for the deaths of different people. Women were worth less than men; but virgins were worth the same. Logically, then, a virgin was as good as a man, and for as long as she stayed a virgin, a woman could live as a man. As ever, there's no extra worth for a virgin male, because regardless of where on the globe you are - France, America, the Middle East, Albania - virginity is only praised in women. Sometimes, we pretend otherwise. But not often.

And in this spirit, we have father-daughter purity balls.

In this spirit, we have hymenoplasty before traditional weddings.

In this spirit, we have women only equal to men through celibacy - and even then, they cannot live in equality as women, but must take on the role of men.

Because in this spirit, women are not equal.

Writing on his blog about Dua Khalil, a 17-year-old girl beaten to death in an honour killing while a mob looked on, Joss Whedon had the following to say:

"How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly? I have spent a good part of my life trying to do that math, and I’m no closer to a viable equation. And I have yet to find a culture that doesn’t buy into it. Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished.

"...I can’t contain my despair, for Dua Khalil, for humanity, for the world we’re shaping...I look and I see the earth in flames. Her face was nothing but red." 

Because no matter how civilised or enlightened we think ourselves, if we want our daughters to be pure and virginal above all else, and if we punish them for straying, then this is where we are headed. 

And history, as Shirley Bassey sang, keeps on repeating.

every time i read another article about purity balls, i just want to scream. i mean, really, there is just something inherently creepy and disturbing about an event that is dedicated to fathers making a vow to keep their daughters "pure" until marriage. and this one passage, in particular, made me want to bang my head against a wall in utter frustration:

When Kylie was 13, her parents took her on a hike in Lake Tahoe, Calif. "We discussed what it means to be a teenager in today's world," she says. They gave her a charm for her bracelet--a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. "On my wedding day, he'll give it to my husband," she explains. "It's a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I'm supposed to be loved."

because obviously, in 2008 in the United States of America, it is still acceptable to view women as property to be transfered from father to husband, only a step above cattle. and the absolute worst part is that the girls whose fathers take them to these events have been raised to believe that they need to be protected by a man at all times, that their true value lies in their sexual purity. because heaven forbid that women be allowed to enjoy their sexuality, to have sex just for the sheer pleasure of it! we are obviously too emotionally and mentally fragile to make our own decisions over who to share our bodies with. such decisions are better left to the men in our lives.

and the truly, truly sickening part to me is that the people who attend these purity balls bring children as young as four years old! i'm sorry, but you cannot tell me that there is not something wrong with men who are concerned enough about the virginity of a FOUR YEAR OLD that they bring them to an event where they vow to protect said virginity in front of a cross under an arch of swords. if you view a child of four as even conceivably being a sexual human being, you need professional help. though in my opinion, if you are considering attending one of these balls, you should be evaluated by a mental health professional.

The purity balls have thus become a proxy in the wider war over means and ends. It is being fought in Congress, where lawmakers debate whether to keep funding abstinence-only education in the face of studies showing it doesn't work; in the culture, as Lindsay and Britney and Miley march in single file off a cliff; at school-board meetings, where members argue over the signal sent by including condoms in the prom bag; at the dinner table, where parents try to transmit values to children, knowing full well that swarms of other messages are landing by text and Twitter. "The culture is everywhere," says Randy's daughter Khrystian, 20. "You can't get away from it." But maybe, the new Puritans suggest, there's a way to boost girls' immunity.

For More

First, I wish Bloglines would stop messing with my post displays. Every time I log in these days it looks different and I have to jump through new hoops. It's disturbing. I'm old, I don't handle change well. It makes me want to shake my cane at them. *shake, shake, shake* Whippersnappers.

Today I was idly butterfly stroking through the news and found a little gem of a piece over at Time magazine. It was a maudlin, slightly gaspy, story about Purity Balls. If you've been living under an atheist rock and haven't heard of them, they are interesting. A Purity Ball is a precious little ceremony for fathers and daughters, in which everyone dresses up and the girls, one as young as four, promise not to have sex before they are married. They are given a purity ring by the dads as they meet before a cross under two crossed swords. The author seems to think this is okay and helpful. Personally, it might be okay if they weren't using phrases to describe the father's position as  "covering my soul until my husband takes over." Blech.

To me this sort of nonsense is about as useful as a U2Euchrist.

Wouldn't a private conversation between the fathers, mothers and daughters be  more useful?  How much does a four year old understand about the topic? I'm guessing not much. Also, if the parent's are doing their job well they don't need a ceremony to discuss the tough choices facing teenagers. Teens already know what they are. Yet, in families I have observed over the years, frank discussions and limits on teens do not exist. Guess what parents, you can limit what your child does. SURPRISE! There is no real need for Purity Balls, what there is a need for is limitations on children trying to get through the very difficult moments of puberty. And parents are afraid to put those limits in play. If they want to go out on a date at thirteen, say no if you've a mind to. After a few days of  tantrums and perhaps a little sneaking around it will all shake out. At the very least the teen will know where you stand and what you consider to be acceptable. This is called guidance. It's the parent's main job.

Things like Purity Balls set teens up for failure. And horrible guilt. They try to impose moral ideals on a natural cycle of growth. Puberty and the contemplation of sex is determined by the hormones not by the parents. Each child needs to have the proper tools to decide what is right for them. Information is the best weapon against the boogey man of sexual activity all parents fear. Denial, rituals and mental religious flogging all put more stress and fear into a time when teens are already struggling. Giving reliable information, a clear set of guidelines and the safety net of honesty between parents and teens does more good than a white rose and a cross.

Thin symbols can never take the place of strong parenting.

Dogwoman

The sex police are at it again. I came across this article at feministing. According to Janice Turner, the creator of Power of Purity classes at New Birth Ministries, "Girls give in to sex not because they want sex - it's like a hug. If they can get that from their fathers, they won't need it from a boyfriend." I know that the woman has had sex because she has a daughter, but she clearly must never have had an orgasm.  People have sex because it feels good. Here is another little thing that she forgot in her message about female chastity, women also have sex with each other, and you know what, that also feels good. It's not all about the penis.

Turner is part of the purity movement that is trying to restrict female sexuality. Girls get all dressed up in white, (love the imagery) Daddy dearest gives them a ring, and they pledge not to engage in sex until marriage. Aww how fucking sweet. No sex until Daddy has turned you over to another man. Nice.  I'm thinking that this would make a great Duracell commercial...cause if you stick with this, you are going to need an endless amount of batteries for the vibrator you are going to have to purchase.

The best part of this whole strategy is that "Purity will never break their hearts." If perhaps the girl is feeling a certain sense of malaise because she has already lowered herself and lost her pride, the vow can still be taken. Yes sinners, repent and it shall all be washed away. To be honest the whole incestuous leaning of the purity movement is down right creepy. The purity ceremony mirrors that of a wedding ceremony, with the saying of vows and exchanging of rings.  It is all about male control over female bodies, and puts the onus on saying no on young women. Though Turner asserts that, "Sex is only a small part of relationships," I feel that the opposite in fact is true.  If it were not such an issue, there would not be a purity and abstinence movement dedicated to disciplining it and controlling it.

Wrapped in religious doctrine about pride and self esteem is the message that good girls don't. Good girls don't really like it. Good girls only say yes when they have permission to say yes. This denies the positive effect that sex can have on the well being of an individual, and it denies that women do indeed enjoy sex. It further promotes heteronormativity. There are a host of reasons to run screaming from this movement.  Don't be fooled because they have colluders like Turner pushing the message.  The decision to engage  in sex should not be based on guilt or shame, it should be based on whether or not it is an equal respectful relationship that involves reciprocity. The surest way to teach young women to respect themselves is to validate their decisions, not shame them into obedience.

(Warning: spoilers)

Thank you to Female Impersonator for reminding me Teeth is now out on DVD. For those of you who have not seen it, get thee to a rental place or, if you are a Netflix-er, watch it from your PC from the play instantly list. You will get a close up view of something rarely seen in film-severed penises.

Now, not that you necessarily have some twisted desire to see mutilated penises, or, as in one scene, watch a bit-off hunk of penis gobbled down sausage style by a bad-ass dog named Mother. These may not be images that sound desirable to watch but, if, like me, you have been inflicted with images of women raped, mutilated, decapitated, of breasts sawn off, bitten, gouged with knives and swords, of the female body penetrated with swords, guns, machetes, and plain old raping penises in movie after movie after television show after movie, you may find a sort of relief watching Teeth. "Finally," you might think, "finally a film that does the violence to men that is CONSTANTLY done to women." Now, as Jean Kilbourne would say, this is not the kind of equality we are looking for. However, a satirical jab (or bite) can be quite cathartic once in awhile.

And, on top of all the penis gore, the film hilariously skewers abstinence only purity-fests, rallies against a construction of masculinity that condones violence and sexual assault, displays sexuality as natural, and brings in Greek myth to boot! In regards to this last aspect, the film pays homage to the enduring myth of the "vagina dentata" not to promote the monstrosity of the female body, but to mock the fear, abhorrence, and ignorance that pervades all things vaginal.

The first quarter of the film zealously skewers the ill-intentioned abstinence only movement. In an early purity-meeting scene, Dawn, the toothed hero, tells the very young audience in attendance that the purity ring they wear is to remind them to keep their virginity tightly under wraps, that "the way it wraps around your finger, that is to remind you to keep your gift wrapped." Ha! Sounds reminiscent of the many condom sayings that advise males to ‘wrap' their penis before sex (some of these sayings are admittedly sexist but others comically promote enjoying ‘wrapped' sex).

In the film, the sex-ed classroom scene is also uproariously classic. As the students flip through their textbooks, they find the penis is diagrammed in all its flaccid and erect glory, but that the diagrams of female genitalia are covered over with huge stickers. When students ask why the images are covered, the teacher shares that the state school board has ordered the diagram concealed. Yes, children, because the vagina is a toxic danger zone! In a later scene, Dawn soaks these pages from the textbook in water in order to remove the sticker and see the pictures beneath. As the expert acting of Jess Weixler reveals, her character has NO IDEA of the intricacies of female genitalia. This moment in the film is an all-too-real reminder of how many females (and males) are horribly uninformed about ‘privates.'

Another classroom scene involves one of those progressive teachers David Horowitz would despise teaching her creationist students about evolution. Here, the film subtly brings in the debates swarming around what can and cannot be taught in public schools. If the abstinence only creationist crowd has their way, the film warns, the important study of evolution will be replaced with a school system that functions like one big purity ball.

While a review over at Occasional Superheroine suggests the film is bashing Christianity, I didn't see it this way. Yes, the film portrays the kids at the purity meetings quoting Genesis like mindless zombies, but the larger message of the film is not anti-Christian. Rather, it is anti-indoctrination, anti-abstinence, and anti-violent/predator masculinity. In fact, it could be argued that the film suggests the abstinence only movement grossly misrepresents the bible and Christianity in general by misappropriating and misinterpreting biblical stories such as Genesis.

As for the representation of a toothed vagina and the various visual/textual references to the social construction of female monstrosity (from the inclusion of toothy female horror images in 50's films to images of Medusa to visual nods to the vagina as a monstrous cave), the film reveals a longstanding (and socially induced) dread of the feminine. While Teeth makes this anxiety explicit, there is no shortage of female monstrosity in the annals of literature, film, folklore, etc. As Lindsay at Female Impersonator in her review of the film notes, "Toothed vaginas are sometimes ‘subtly' hidden in films (Pirates of the Caribbean 2, anybody? That Kraken is a huuuuge toothed vagina)." Yes, and from Ursula of The Little Mermaid to the toothy female monsters in Alien, women are coded as castrating, dangerous bitches in film. True, men are often the villains, but their villainy is usually of the evil/violent variety; they are not monsters so much as weapon wielding rapists and murderers. And, as Jackson Katz explores in his wonderful Tough Guise documentary, the horror genre conveys the message that sex is bad (and especially bad for women)-that when you partake in sexual activity, Jason is going to skewer you or Michael Meyers will axe you.

The representation of female monstrosity in film is much different than the (sanctioning) of male violence. Moreover, within the horror film genre, men are often evil/violent because of the women (usually mothers) in their lives, as with Norman Bates, Jason of the Friday the Thirteenth Series, Michael Meyers of the Halloween series, and the masked slasher of Scream (among many others). Thus, even when the murderers/villains are male, the subtext often BLAMES WOMEN for their actions. Interestingly, when the horror revolves around a female monster (rather than a villain motivated by his bad mother or twisted sister), the misogyny of the horror genre is sometimes more subtle. For example, it may take reading the classic book The Monstrous Feminine, by Barbara Creed, for many viewers to tease out the misogynistic implications of Alien or reading Jane Caputi's Goddesses and Monsters to realize Jaws is one big vagina dentata.

This is where Teeth is different. It wears a mocking, satirical grin in order to not so subtly attack the misogyny of our cultural mythologies as well as the inanity of the abstinence only paradigm. And, its ‘monster' is actually a heroine-an enterprising smarty that, by film's end, has the makings of one badass, teeth wielding feminist. As Arin Brenner's commentary at Feminist Review notes in regards to the horror film genre, "There's always a beautiful blonde female, who, undoubtedly, needs to be saved, but if she makes the bad choice to have sex and become a "slut," she must die. Dawn...is so not that girl."

Within the narrative, as Dawn's vaginal teeth begin to separate men from their members (fingers as well as penises), the audience is prompted to question whether Dawn's vagina always bites or whether the clampdown is a result of sexual violation. Watching the movie, I anxiously awaited the answer to this question. For, if Dawn's vagina always attacked, that would preclude any sort of healthy sexuality message let alone any hint of a female empowerment subtext. It would merely reify the vagina (and women by extension) as dangerous, uncontrollable monsters unable to control even their own vaginas. Thankfully, the film reveals that consent is the key to a chomp free sexual experience. Like the "I heart consensual sex campaign" sponsored by NOW or the forthcoming Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape spearheaded by the women at Feministing, the film argues that the key to sexual justice (and pleasure) is consent. Now, that's a message I can sink my teeth into.

OK. So I guess you would all agree with me that we need a solution. In recent times, the abstinence movement has grown rapidly. It is interesting to read about the various and diverse forms through which abstinence is being encouraged. The latest and most fashionable is the Purity Balls currently being held in different parts of the US. I read this article on the New York Times website:

The girls, ages early grade school to college, had come with their fathers, stepfathers and future fathers-in-law last Friday night to the ninth annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball. The first two hours of the gala passed like any somewhat awkward night out with parents, the men doing nearly all the talking and the girls struggling to cut their chicken.

But after dessert, the 63 men stood and read aloud a covenant “before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.”

Read the whole article here.

Purity Balls! The idea is certainly interesting. On one hand I can understand where the organizers may be coming from; the Bible does say that a man is the head (more like a covering) over his household and I think it makes sense that they should be involved (within reason) in their daughters' lives. After all, a daughter needs her father's affirmation that she's beautiful. However the ritualization of it all ...

Well, not all of us have fathers! But for those who do, it may not be a bad idea. I get my sense of validation and individuality from my dad.

I see life as one big dance (forget Shakespeare, he was an actor). Some amount of purity will be useful as we dance. It is like the Latin maxim - he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. However, I think we need to focus more on the individual. Let me elucidate.

If your girl feels good about herself and has a healthy amount of self worth, she's not going to go about sleeping with whomever in order to feel better about herself. What I'm saying is instead of focusing on whether to be pure or not be pure or to be a virgin or not; shouldn't more time be spent building up the opinion the girls around you have of themselves?

For me, it was my mum's faith in me that kept me for a very long time. I did not want to disappoint her. I was convinced that the day I finally had sex, my mum would dream about it and see it in a 'vision'. (No I'm not going to tell you if I've had sex or not so no holding of breaths please!).

Anyway, back to the Purity ball thing, it is definitely a new concept to me. I live in Nigeria. We do not have purity balls. If I mention it to my friends they're going to have this blank look on their face and ask 'balls?' But I am interested in the concept. How does it work? What goes into organizing one? If you have participated in one or have been an organizer, I'll love to hear from you.

The newest, hottest trend amongst young evangelical girls: Purity!  It's totes the new black, (if black was white) you know.

The NY Times article Dancing the Night Away, With a Higher Purpose focuses specifically on a Father-Daughter Purity Ball in Colorado, attended by women ranging in age form early grade school to college with their fathers, stepfathers and future fathers-in-law (yes, one of these chicks is disturbingly "promised to someone and she is just 16).  

The function is a gala where the men stand and pledge to God that they will protect their daughter  "in the area of purity" against “hook-up culture.”  The girls don't sign anything, but have probably already conceded to the fact that they will be spending a lot of time in their room in  order to keep their spanking clean panties on till marraige. 

Abstinence and waiting is great and blah blah blah.  But only if it's something that a girl decides on her own and not because she is pressured to by parents or the church.  This whole "Purity" concept and the ritual that goes along with it, like praying in front of a cross and reciting pledges, is something frighteningly archaic and somewhat perverse in that it's a major set up for future sexual and psychological problems. 

The men talk about their daughters virginity as something that needs to be guarded.  Mr. Wilson says “Fathers, our daughters are waiting for us.  They are desperately waiting for us in a culture that lures them into the murky waters of exploitation. They need to be rescued by you, their dad.”

I'm no psychologist, but a) the whole "rescue" thing is just looney and b) isn't this just like telling these young women:

1) Sex is impure, and therefore dirty and evil.  All those natural, basic urges you feel - also evil.  Repress them or you are evil.

2) The world is dark, murky and dangerous.  All men want is your vagina (which may be true in some cases, but hey, there is something to be said for experimentation and expereince).  Be afraid of the world, be afraid of men. 

3) All the people around you that have sex are evil.  Stay away from all of the people who may have a great affect on you as a person because they are sex-having-satans.

Studies show that most teenagers who say they will remain abstinent, do end up having sex and more likely than not, don't use a condom.  What's not said in the study is how this makes these girls feel. 

When someone who has been brought up to beleive that their vagina is some sort of sacred lotus flower or untouchable "clean" place that needs to be "protected" finally has sex, even if its with their husband, its got to be hard for them to enjoy it. Can you say, "Hello guilty feelings caused from years of being told sex is bad."

First of all, there are no similar purity ceremonies held for the young boys. I guess their purity is inconsequential? Boys in these highly religious communities are not seen as emotionally fraught and vulnerable as their female counterparts.

This is creepy to me, I just don't understand the whole "party" concept. If a family decides mutually (child and parents) that such a pledge is the right thing for them, that's great. Say a prayer or vow at home and go out for a special commemorative dinner. Why do these purity ceremonies have to mimic a wedding? Seriously, from fathers giving their daughters a ring, to the expensive dresses and placing white roses at the foot of a crucifix.

One more thing that bothered me. It's all well and good to vow to physically abstain from sex if that's what you deem to be the appropriate decision. However, these girls are also vowing to refrain from impure thoughts. This seems a bit blurry. How is this line of pure/impure thoughts formed? Isn't thinking preferential to doing? How is thinking something sinful?

These father-daughter balls are a way for the father to "protect" his daughter's virginity. As someone who has grown up having a close relationship with my father, I never expected it was his job to "protect" me. Isn't that what growing up is all about? Making mistakes and learning from them?

This is just scary all around IMHO.

more cat pictures

He signed a pledge to be the protector of her purity and to live his own life with integrity. She gave her father a gold key to her heart, and asked him to hold on to it until her wedding day, when he would hand it over to her husband. They walked down the aisle with locked arms and she laid a white rose beside a cross, sealing her commitment.

"It's like I'm devoting my virginity to my dad, saying that I will stay pure because it is the Christian thing to do," said Lindsay Anne Schell, 18, a freshman at Bradley University in Peoria. "The rose shows the world that you are devoting your purity to God and to your father."

Huge issues. Devoting your virginity to your father? Sounds really messed up. Of course, girls need these purity balls because they obviously can't stop themselves from having sex. Their father has to make sure they don't have sex. And this gold key thing? Eww. That reeks of the time when women were property. And why the hell don't they have these things for boys? Riight, their sexuality isn't worth as much. They can just go fuck around if they want. But girls, nope, they need to remain pure! So many sexist issues and double standards come out of this. Too many to really talk about right now.

So, property? I say yes.

"These events represent an idea that there is something about female sexuality that needs to be controlled by dominant men in the household," said Mary Zeiss Stange, a professor of women's studies at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. "That relates to a patriarchal position in the evangelical movement that not only defines female sexuality but females themselves as property. What happens with purity balls is, in effect, the daughter becomes her father's property until he hands her off to her husband."

How are these balls even accepted or allowed? Are people still so old fashioned and sexist that they think this is just the best thing since sliced bread? Oh...one more thing. Why aren't mothers involved? They gave birth to their children. They deserve a little input, I'm thinking.

Sooooo many things wrong with these things.

Några favoriter är Simpsons, American Dad och Family Guy.

Tidningen MAD antyder vissa likheter mellan familjen Griffin och familjen Simpson

De tre serierna påminner om varandra. En amerikansk familj. Pappan är en galning, mamman är familjens smörjmedel. Dottern är ganska smart, sonen är en nörd eller en looser i pappas fotspår. Det finns ett husdjur eller två.

Husdjuren i Simpsons är inte lika deltagande som i Family Guy och American Dad.

Pappan går till en bar och träffar sina looserkompisar. I Family Guy är grannen sexgalningen Quagmire. Han har våta drömmar om mamma Lois. En annan granne är pensionären Herbert som drömmer våta drömmar om den korkade sonen Chris.

I Simpson har de en skötsam religiös familj till grannar. Där läser pappan sagor för barnen och de får inte stryk.

Alla tre serierna är producerade av den ultrakonservativa TV-kanalen FOX. Och alla tre driver någon gång med kanalen. Många av avsnitten har censurerats - främst på grund av att de ansetts omoraliska. Våld censureras inte.

Simpsons: Homer, Marge, Lisa, Bart, Maggie, Snowball och Santas Little Helper

Homer Simpson arbetar på ett kärnkraftverk, Stan Smith (American Dad) arbetar på CIA och älskar Nixon och Georg Bush, Peter Griffin (Family Guy) brukar vara arbetslös.

American Dad: Roger, Francine, Stan, guldfisken Klaus, Hayley och Steve

Fruarna är oftast hemmafruar - men har ibland provat på att arbeta. Och det brukar gå ganska bra för dem.

Marge Simpson har tillhört ett kriminellt gäng.

I Simpsons är det dottern Lisa som är den smartaste - hon har ett IQ på mellan 156 och 159, är buddhist och spelar barytonsax. Lisa lyckades i ett avsnitt ta sig in på universitetet och följa föreläsningarna där - istället för den tråkiga grundskolan. Hon trivs inte i sin klass - trots att hon flyttats upp så många klasser att hon går över sin storebror Bart.

Babyn Maggie suger bara på sin napp.

De har en katt - Snowball och en hund - Santas Little Helper - men katten och hunden brukar inte ha några talroller.

Family Guy: Brian, Lois, Peter, Stewie, Chris och Meg

I Family Guy är det yngste sonen Stewie som är den smartaste - han är ännu ett blöjbarn, hatar sin mamma - Lois - och umgås mest med hunden Brian. Brian är kär i mamman och lite alkoholiserad. Stewie talar med en utpräglad brittisk överklassengelska.

Dottern Meg är alla ganska taskiga mot. Hon har glasögon och oftast ingen pojkvän.

I American dad är det ingen som är överintelligent. Pappa Stan är korkad och paranoid, mamma Francine är förstående mot sina barn - som står långt från pappans ideologi.

Dottern Hayely är kommunist och miljövän, är ihop med en hippie - och röker hasch.

Sonen Steve är en nörd som helst umgås med sina killkompisar och pratar om science fiction.

De har en guldfisk - Klaus - som är kär i mamma Francine. Han bryter på tyska - egentligen är han en östtysk simmare - som CIA var tvungna att förvandla till guldfisk - annars hade han vunnit OS åt Östtyskland.

I huset bor även rymdvarelsen Roger som är kär i sonen Steves nördkompisar. Det är av yttersta vikt att ingen får reda på att Roger bor där.

Jag skrattar ofta högt när jag ser avsnitten.

When You Wish Upon a Weinstein

Ett Family Guy-avsnitt handlar om pappan - Peter (katolik med irländskt ursprung - bland annat) - som är så fruktansvärt korkad att han tar alla pengar som skulle gått till oförutsedda utgifter - och köper en vulkanförsäkring. Han inser sitt misstag när hans normalbegåvade (protestantiske) hustru skäller ut honom. På krogen träffar han sina kompisar - de har tjänat på smart skatteplanering - deras privatekonomiska rådgivare har hjälpt dem till det. Och rådgivarna är judar.

Peter inser att han behöver en jude. Hans önskan går i uppfyllelse då en jude ringer på dörren - och juden fixar tillbaks vulkanpengarna.

Peter har förstått att han själv är oerhört korkad - men att han tillhör en förlorad generation - sonen Chris däremot - som är ännu dummare - honom kanske det finns hopp om. Om Chris blir jude så kanske han har en chans att inte göra samma tabbar som pappa.

Woody Allen har en liten roll i filmen - när Peter ska förklara att judarna står bakom allt smart som någonsin hänt i USA:s historia.

När jag letade efter information om filmen såg jag att den är föremål för en stämning. Sången som Peter Griffin sjunger "When You Wish upon a Weinstein" är alldeles för lik "When You Wish Upon a Star". Desstuom anses avsnittet naturligtvis vara antisemitiskt. Fast jag tycker att det är antikatolskt/anti-irländskt. Peter säger att judar är smarta och irländare är korkade och dricker öl. Jag tror man kan se avsnittet på deras hemsida. Det är nummer två från vänster - där man ser en transformer - den är också judisk.

Så här står det på Wikipedia om stämningen: On 3 October 2007, the Bourne Company publishing house, sole owner of the song "When You Wish Upon a Star", filed a lawsuit against several Fox divisions, Cartoon Network, Fuzzy Door Productions, Family Guy producer Seth MacFarlane and composer Walter Murphy, claiming copyright infringement over "I Need a Jew", seeking unspecified damages and to halt the program's distribution. The suit claims harm to the value of the song due to the offensive nature of the lyrics. It is not clear whether such a claim would be upheld in view of court decisions generally upholding these types of parodies, including insulting ones, such as the case of Fisher v. Dees (parody of song When Sonny Gets Blue).

-o-

I ett annat avsnitt inser mamma Lois att barnen inte har någon sexualundervisning i skolan. Hon anmäler sig som frivillig och är en oerhört engagerad lärare. Hennes man - Peter - kommer till skolan och hjälper till.

Lois blir avskedad redan nästa dag eftersom föräldrarna klagar på att hon inte endast lär ut avhållsamhet.

En annan person kommer till skolan och barnen får lära sig att sexuell avhållsamhet fram till äktenskapet är det bästa. Alla som lovar att inte ha sex får en ring - som ska påminna dem om deras löfte.

Meg Griffin och hennes pojkvän lovar och får ringar. Även Peter - som ju redan är gift - får en ring.

Lois blir vansinnig - hon och Peter brukar ha ett ganska bra sexliv - nu vägrar han.

Men så är det någon som kommer på att man kan ha sex i örat - det var inget man lovade att avstå från - så Peter vill ha sex i örat med Lois.

Jag garvar så jag gråter när jag ser såna sjuka grejer.

Men så fick jag tips om en film på Youtube...

Och den handlade om sexuell avhållsamhet - abstinence. På riktigt. Inte en tecknad serie. Inte sjuk humor. Sjuk verkighet...

Små flickor - 10-åringar - bjuds på "purity balls" av sina pappor - och får en "abstinence ring" om de lovar att hålla på sig tills de gifter sig.

I gengäld lovar pappan att också leva rent. Papporna ska bland annat inte kolla på sex på Internet!

Denna bal gör sexuella varelser av små flickor. Vet de vad de lovar att avstå ifrån? Troligen inte. De måste ta reda på det. Och sedan undrar de varför detta är så förbjudet. Måste undersökas förstås.

Min morfar bodde på internatskola i Kalifornien som barn. De sov med s.k. health bands - dvs en slags tvångströjor - för att förhindra dem från att undersöka området söder om naveln.

Vilket fick dessa små gossar att ägna hela nätterna åt sydliga expeditioner - förstås.

Min kompis Clas berättade: "När jag gick på middle school i USA var det en tre fyra tjejer som var gravida, 13-14 åringar."

Och det var tjejer som inte fått ordentlig sexualundervisning - men gått på "purity balls" och bar "abstinence ring".

I min skola blev en tjej gravid när jag börjat gymnasiet. Men ingen blev gravid i hela den jättestora högstadieskolan under de tre åren jag gick där. Och vi lovade inte våra pappor någonting - vad jag vet. De tjejer och killar som hade sex använde preventivmedel. Och de som inte hade preventivmedel och blev gravida gjorde abort.

För övrigt undrar jag vad de amerikanska pojkarna lovar sina mammor - och vad mammorna lovar i gengäld.

-o-

Prick up Your Ears - Family Guy-avsnittet där de lovar att inte ha sex - finns tyvärr inte på Youtube - men på Wikipedia - som text.

Family Guys hemsida

Family Guy på Wikipedia

American Dads hemsida

American Dad på Wikipedia

Simpsons hemsida

Simpson på Wikipedia

The Father Daughter Purity Ball is a memorable ceremony for fathers to sign commitments to be responsible men of integrity in all areas of purity. The commitment also includes their vow to protect their daughters in their choices for purity. The daughters silently commit to live pure lives before God through the symbol of laying down a white rose at the cross. Because we cherish our daughters as regal princesses—for 1 Peter 3:4 says they are “precious in the sight of God”—we want to treat them as royalty.

"As all the dads stood to read the covenant over their daughters, I felt the power of those words sink right into my heart. My father pledged to protect me and promised to lead a life of integrity and purity for me. He signed his name and I signed as a witness to his words. And as he escorted me to the dance floor I felt empowered by his promise to spend the rest of his life warring for my heart through his life of purity. And I knew my life would never be the same..."

I don't get it.

Maybe I'm dim, but in what way - exactly - does the father protect his regal princess daughter's virginity?

It’s like a wedding but with a twist: Young women exchange rings, take vows and enjoy a first dance…with their dads. “Purity balls” are the next big thing in the save-it-till-marriage movement. Smart or scary?

Glad you asked.

Scary.

It's none of my business how religious zealots choose to live their lives, or by what interpretations of whichever teachings by whatever godly personage.

Unless they're blowing up trams, in which case I do take exception.

But when it comes to whether or not their daughter is sexually active before marriage, that's up to them. Good luck with it all, and so on.

I just want to know the mechanics of the deal.

So they go with their dad as a date to some sort of anti-deb, where their debut into society comes with a caveat: "I will remain pure (i.e. a virgin) until I am married".

And fair enough; I understand that. And I understand the role of virginity in the objectification and commoditisation of women.

I don't understand how a modern, first-world society has decided to continue to commoditise its citizens, but that's not for me to judge.

What I don't get is how the protection works.

What happens, say, if the girl changes her mind?

Intervention time?

She's in the backseat, under some guy called Chip, and Daddy tears open the door of the car, invoking seven kinds of heaven?

Daught, now all Chippity, says, 'Oh, it's ok, Dad. I've changed my mind and i want Chip's taddies a-swimmin' in my linen.'

At which point Chip - empowered by a mazillion years of evolution and his due right to the girl who has admired the purity of his balls - is entitled to reinforce Daught's suggestion that Daddy just go away?

I'm sure that Daddy will be disappointed by that.